Hawaii flipped the rules on carrying guns, but the Supreme Court zeroed in on one problem

The Supreme Court appears highly skeptical of Hawaii’s controversial law that sharply limits where people can carry firearms, signaling the justices may be prepared to strike down another major restriction on gun rights. The issue came into focus during oral arguments reported by The Washington Post.

The court heard arguments over a Hawaii statute that bans people from carrying firearms on private property open to the public unless the owner has given explicit consent. In most states, gun owners are allowed to carry unless told otherwise, but Hawaii reversed that presumption by requiring permission first. The shift effectively restricts public carry across much of the state, prompting a challenge from three gun owners and a gun rights group.

That challenge centers on whether the law conflicts with recent Supreme Court precedent and places an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment. Several justices appeared receptive to that argument during questioning, repeatedly pressing the state on why gun rights should face such sweeping limits.

Several justices questioned why gun rights should be treated differently

Conservative members of the court were openly critical of the statute during the hearing. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told Neal Katyal, the attorney defending Hawaii, that the law appeared to relegate the Second Amendment to “second-class status,” a theme that ran through much of the conservative questioning. The arguments also landed amid a busy political news cycle that included a Putin invitation mystery.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. also pressed Katyal on why gun rights should be treated differently from other constitutional protections. He compared the law to First Amendment activity, noting that political candidates are generally allowed to approach private homes to campaign, and questioned why a similar presumption should not apply to carrying firearms on publicly accessible property.

The dispute traces back to the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 Bruen decision, which held that the Second Amendment guarantees a general right to carry firearms in public. That ruling also requires modern gun regulations to be justified by historical precedent rooted in American tradition.

The challengers argue Hawaii’s law fails that test. While the court has said a regulation does not need a perfect historical twin, it must have a valid historical analogue. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh suggested Hawaii had not met that burden, stating there was no sufficient historical support for the restriction.

The court’s three liberal justices appeared more sympathetic to the state’s position. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed to Hawaii’s long history of strict gun control laws and argued there is nothing about the state’s customs or traditions that requires the measure to be struck down. She also cited polling referenced in the case indicating the restriction is popular with residents.

Hawaii’s historical arguments drew scrutiny as well. Katyal cited anti-poaching laws and a post-Civil War Louisiana “Black Code” statute restricting firearm possession by African Americans, arguing more broadly that there is no constitutional right to carry a gun onto every piece of private property.

The outcome is expected to have national implications. States such as California and New York enacted similar laws after Bruen, and a ruling against Hawaii could undermine those measures. The justices are also considering another Second Amendment case this term involving a federal ban on firearm possession by habitual drug users, which the Trump administration has urged the court to uphold. Elsewhere, Russia threatens a GTA 6 ban over one bizarre addition.